2011 Turfgrass Pathology Field Research

Transcription

1 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Field Research Texas AgriLife Extension Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology Texas A&M University December 25, Turfgrass Pathology Report 1

2 I am very excited about sharing the results of the Turfgrass Pathology Field Research performed in Texas over the past year with you. The field tests for 2010/2011 included 14 field plot sites established at four golf courses and one sod farm, and Texas A&M University research farms located in College Station and Dallas. More than 3,000 miles were driven during the past year to set up plots, apply treatments and evaluate diseases. Many County Extension Agents, Golf Course Superintendents, Landscape Mangers and Sod Farmers have been associated with our research efforts and provided invaluable supports to complete productive field study for the past year. I believe this report provides researchbased and locally-tested information to Texas turfgrass industry. I am sincerely grateful for the tremendous industry support shown for the Texas A&M Turfgrass Pathology Program by BASF Corporation, Bayer Environmental Science, Cleary Chemical Corporation, Dow AgroSciences, Dupont Crop Protection, Quali-Pro, and Syngenta Professional Products. This field study is also sponsored by Turfgrass Producers of Texas (TPT) and Texas Turfgrass Research, Extension, and Education Endowment (TREEE). I also would like to acknowledge and give special thanks to the golf course superintendents, golf club owners, and sod producers for participating in our research projects and providing us field research sites. Your volunteer effort made this research possible. Some of the great people that provided tremendous help include Eric Bauer and Tim Huber of the Club at Carlton Woods, George Manuel of Royal Oaks Country Club, George Cincotta of Riverbend Country Club, Nick Johnson of the Woodlands Country Club, Palmer Course, and Lindy Murff of Murff Turf Farms. Without the support of turf industry members like you, the Turfgrass Pathology Research and Extension Program would not be a success. I look forward to your continued support and collaborative relationship. Sincerely, Young-Ki Jo Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology 120 Peterson Building, 2132 TAMU College Station, TX Phone: ykjo@tamu.edu 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 2

3 Table of Contents # Title Page 1 Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of large patch on zoysiagrass in the Woodlands in the winter 2 Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of large patch on zoysiagrass in Dallas in the winter 6 3 Efficacy of spring application of fungicides for control of large patch on St. Augustinegrass lawn in Houston 8 4 Efficacy of the fall application of fungicides for control of large patch on St. Augustinegrass sod in Crosby in Efficacy of the fall application of fungicides for control of large patch on St. Augustinegrass in Dallas in Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of large patch on bermudagrass in Houston in Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of large patch on seashore paspalum in College Station in Efficacy of spring nematicide application for control of sting nematode on bermudagrass in Houston in Efficacy of summer nematicide application for control of root knot nematode on bermudagrass in Sugar Land in Efficacy of fall nematicide application for control of root knot nematode on bermudagrass in Sugar Land in Efficacy of fall nematicide application for control of root knot nematode on bermudagrass in College Station in Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of leaf spot on bermudagrass in the Woodlands, TX in Efficacy of spring fungicide application for control of black spot on zoysiagrass in the Woodlands, TX in Efficacy of summer fungicide application for control of black spot on zoysiagrass in the Woodlands, TX in Efficacy of spring fungicide application for control of fairy ring on the bermudagrass putting green in Sugar Land, 34 TX in Evaluation of fungicide programs on ultra-dwarf bermudagrass during a growing season in College Station, TX in Disclaimer The research results in this document are not intended to be management recommendations. Products, application procedures and other research methods used in this study may not be registered, legal for public use or beneficial for use in some situations. No endorsement of products is implied or intended. This publication was prepared and distributed by the Turfgrass Pathology Laboratory, Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Texas A&M University as a service to the turfgrass industry and management professionals in Texas Turfgrass Pathology Report 3

4 1. Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of large patch on zoysiagrass in The Woodlands in the winter Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of large patch disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani and spring green-up on zoysiagrass. Materials and Methods Fungicide efficacy was evaluated on zoysiagrass cultivar Zeon for control of large patch disease between the late fall, 2010 and spring, The field trial was conducted on the driving range (native soil with a 5-inch sand cap) located at the Club of Carlton Woods, Tom Fazio Championship Course in the Woodlands, TX. Individual plots measured 3 6 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO 2 - pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two TeeJet 8002 nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gal dilute fungicide spray per 1000 ft 2. The application was performed twice on 5 Oct and 9 Nov Percent diseased area was measured in the following spring on 29 Mar Data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05). Results and Discussion Spring green-up began and disease symptoms appeared in March on most plots. Statistically, there was significant improvement with certain fungicide combinations (please see Table 1) compared with the non-treated controls. Disease severity ratings significantly less than the control are in bold Turfgrass Pathology Report 4

5 Table 1. Fungicide combination used for control of large patch on the zoysiagrass fairway in the fall, 2010 Tmt # Treatment (Oct 5, 2010) Rate per 1000 ft 2 (fl oz or oz/m) Treatment (Nov 9, 2010) Rate per 1000 ft 2 (fl oz or oz/m) 29-Mar-2011 Disease severity (%) 1 Quali-Pro Ipro 4 QP Chlorothalonil DF + Propiconazole Foursome C-I 2 Quali-Pro TM 2 NEW QP CHLOR DF + Propiconazole Foursome C-G 3 QP Chlorothalonil DF 3.2 QP 642 Fungicide + Foursome G-I 4 NEW QP CHLOR DF 3.2 QP 642 Fungicide B-H 5 26 GT 4 26 GT A-E plus plus C-I 7 Daconil Ultrex 3.2 Daconil Ultrex D-I 8 TRITON FLO 0.75 TRITON FLO C-I 9 ProStar 70WP 2.2 TRITON FLO GHI 10 TRITON FLO 0.5 TRITON FLO C-I 11 TRITON FLO 0.75 TRITON FLO C-H 12 ProStar 70WP D-I 13 ProStar 70WP 2.2 TRITON FLO C-I 14 DISARM 480 SC 0.18 DISARM 480 SC A-E 15 DISARM 480 SC 0.36 DISARM 480 SC B-G 16 Tartan 2 Tartan 2 30 A-F 17 Headway G 4 #/M Headway G 4 #/M B-G 18 Renown 4.5 Renown I 19 Heritage wg 2 Heritage wg HI 20 Banner Maxx 4 Banner Maxx ABC 21 Eagle 2 Eagle B-G 22 Insignia 0.9 Insignia F-I 23 Trinity 2 Trinity E-I 24 Fore 8 Fore HI 25 PCNB 7.5 #/M PCNB 7.5 #/M 32.5 A-D 26 Ammonium sulfate 16 Ammonium sulfate B-G 27 Ammonium sulfate 32 Ammonium sulfate B-G 28 Maxide disease killer 4 #/M Maxide disease killer 4 #/M 17.5 F-I 29 Non-treated control - Non-treated control A 30 Non-treated control - Non-treated control AB 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 5

6 2. Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of large patch on zoysiagrass in Dallas in the winter Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Benjamin Wherley, and Ambica Chandra, Texas AgriLife Urban Solution Center, Dallas Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of large patch disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani and spring green-up on zoysiagrass. Materials and Methods Fungicide efficacy was evaluated on zoysiagrass cultivar Cavalier for control of large patch disease between the late fall, 2010 and spring, Field trials were conducted on the fairway located at Texas AgriLife Research & Extension Urban Solutions Center in Dallas. Individual plots measured 3 6 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO 2 -pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two TeeJet 8002 nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gal dilute fungicide spray per 1000 ft 2. The application was performed once on 13 Oct Percent diseased area was measured in the following spring on 7 Apr Data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05). Results and Discussion Spring green-up was delayed and still partially dormant in early April. Large patch pressure was low (in any) and not uniformly distributed in the plots due to record-drought during the winter. Statistically, there was no significant improvement with any fungicide treatments (P = ) Turfgrass Pathology Report 6

7 Table 2. Fungicide treatments used for control of large patch on the zoysiagrass fairway in the fall, 2010 Tmt # Treatment (Oct 13, 2010) Rate per 1000 ft 2 7 Apr 2011 (fl oz or oz/m) Disease severity (%) 1 Quali-Pro Ipro Quali-Pro TM QP Chlorothalonil DF NEW QP CHLOR DF GT plus Daconil Ultrex TRITON FLO ProStar 70WP TRITON FLO TRITON FLO ProStar 70WP ProStar 70WP DISARM 480 SC DISARM 480 SC Tartan Headway G 4 #/M Renown Heritage wg Banner Maxx Eagle Insignia Trinity Fore PCNB 7.5 #/M Ammonium sulfate Ammonium sulfate Maxide disease killer 4 #/M Non-treated control Non-treated control Turfgrass Pathology Report 7

8 3. Efficacy of spring application of fungicides for control of large patch on St. Augustinegrass lawn in Houston Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of large patch disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani and spring green-up on St. Augustinegrass. Materials and Methods Fungicide efficacy was evaluated on St. Augustinegrass lawn showing large patch symptoms in the fall, Field trials were conducted on a home lawn located in Houston, TX. Individual plots measured 3 by 4 feet. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO2 pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two Teejet 8002 nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gallons of dilute fungicide spray per 1000 ft 2. The fungicide application was performed once on 22 Feb, 2011, when the turfgrass was partially on winter dormancy. Turfgrass quality (1-9 scale: 6 = acceptable and 9 = the best quality) was measured on 29 March Data obtained were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA; alpha = 0.05) and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05). Results and Discussion The St. Augustinegrass area used in this field study was infested by large patch in the fall, 2010, and went to partial winter dormancy between December and February. Spring green-up began and disease symptoms appeared in March. There was no statistically significant improvement with any fungicides (P = 0.247) Turfgrass Pathology Report 8

9 Table 3. Fungicide treatments used for control of large patch on St. Augustinegrass lawn in the spring, 2011 Tmt # Treatment (Feb 22, 2011) Rate per 1000 ft 2 (fl oz or oz/m) 29-Mar-2011 Turfgrass quality 1 Tartan Bayleton flo ProStar 70wp Heritage 50wg Non-treated control Turfgrass Pathology Report 9

10 4. Efficacy of the fall application of fungicides for control of large patch on St. Augustinegrass sod in Crosby in 2010 Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of large patch disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani and spring green-up on St. Augustinegrass. Materials and Methods Fungicide efficacy was evaluated on St. Augustinegrass cultivar Palmetto sod for control of large patch in the fall, Field trials were conducted on Murff Turf Farm in Crosby, TX. Individual plots measured 3 by 6 feet. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO2 pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two Teejet 8002 nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gallons of dilute fungicide spray per 1000 ft 2. The fungicide application was performed twice on 8 Oct and 15 Nov, Turf quality (1-9 scales; 6 = acceptable and 9 = best) were measured on 28 Mar, Data obtained were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA; alpha = 0.05) and mean comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05). Results and Discussion Large patch pressure was low (if any) and not uniformly distributed in the plots, due to record-drought during the winter. Statistically, there was no significant improvement with fungicide treatments (P = ) Turfgrass Pathology Report 10

11 Tmt # Treatment (Oct 8, 2010) Table 4. Fungicide treatments used for control of large patch on the St. Augustinegrass sod in the fall, 2010 Rate for 1000 ft 2 (fl oz or oz/m) Treatment (Nov 15, 2010) Rate for 1000 ft 2 (fl oz or oz/m) 28-Mar-2011 Turfgrass quality 1 Quali-Pro Ipro 4 QP Chlorothalonil DF + Propiconazole Foursome Quali-Pro TM 2 QP Chlorothalonil DF + Propiconazole QP Chlorothalonil DF 3.2 NEW QP CHLOR DF + Propiconazole NEW QP CHLOR DF 3.2 QP 642 Fungicide GT 4 26 GT plus plus Daconil Ultrex 3.2 Daconil Ultrex TRITON FLO 0.75 TRITON FLO ProStar 70WP 2.2 TRITON FLO TRITON FLO 0.5 TRITON FLO TRITON FLO 0.75 TRITON FLO ProStar 70WP ProStar 70WP 2.2 TRITON FLO DISARM 480 SC 0.18 DISARM 480 SC DISARM 480 SC 0.36 DISARM 480 SC Tartan 2 Tartan Headway G 4 #/M Headway G 4 #/M Renown 4.5 Renown Heritage wg 2 Heritage wg Banner Maxx 4 Banner Maxx Eagle 2 Eagle Insignia 0.9 Insignia Trinity 2 Trinity Fore 8 Fore PCNB 7.5 #/M PCNB 7.5 #/M Ammonium sulfate 16 Ammonium sulfate Ammonium sulfate 32 Ammonium sulfate Maxide disease killer 4 #/M Maxide disease killer 4 #/M Non-treated control - Non-treated control Non-treated control - Non-treated control Turfgrass Pathology Report 11

12 5. Efficacy of the fall application of fungicides for control of large patch on St. Augustinegrass in Dallas in 2010 Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Benjamin Wherley, and Ambica Chandra, Texas AgriLife Urban Solution Center, Dallas Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of large patch disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani and spring green-up on St. Augustinegrass. Materials and Methods Fungicide efficacy was evaluated on St. Augustinegrass for control of large patch disease between the late fall, 2010 and spring, Field trials were conducted on the St. Augustinegrass located at Texas AgriLife Research & Extension Urban Solutions Center in Dallas. Individual plots measured 3 6 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO 2 -pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two TeeJet 8002 nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gal dilute fungicide spray per 1000 ft 2. The application was performed once on 13 Oct Percent brown turf area was measured in the following spring on 7 Apr Data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05). Results and Discussion Spring green-up was delayed and partially dormant in early April. Large patch pressure was low (if any) and not uniformly distributed in the plots, due to record-drought during the winter. Statistically, there was no significant improvement with fungicide treatments in the following spring (P = ) Turfgrass Pathology Report 12

13 Table 5. Fungicide treatments used for control of large patch on the St. Augustinegrass in the fall, 2010 Tmt # Treatment (Oct 13, 2010) Rate per 1000 ft 2 7 Apr 2011 (fl oz or oz/m) Brown turf area (%) 1 Quali-Pro Ipro Quali-Pro TM QP Chlorothalonil DF NEW QP CHLOR DF GT plus Daconil Ultrex TRITON FLO ProStar 70WP TRITON FLO TRITON FLO ProStar 70WP ProStar 70WP DISARM 480 SC DISARM 480 SC Tartan Renown Heritage wg Banner Maxx Eagle Insignia Trinity Fore PCNB 7.5 #/M Ammonium sulfate Ammonium sulfate Maxide disease killer 4 #/M Non-treated control Non-treated control Turfgrass Pathology Report 13

14 6. Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of large patch on bermudagrass in Houston in 2010 Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of large patch disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani and spring green-up on bermudagrass. Materials and Methods Fungicide efficacy was evaluated on bermudagrass cultivar Tifway 419 for control of large patch disease between the late fall, 2010 and spring, The field trial was conducted on the fairway located at Royal Oaks Club in Houston, TX. Individual plots measured 3 4 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO 2 -pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two TeeJet 8002 nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gal dilute fungicide spray per 1000 ft 2. The application was performed twice on 4 Oct and 15 Nov Percent diseased area was measured in the following spring on 29 Mar Data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05). Results and Discussion Spring green-up began and disease symptoms appeared in March on most plots. However the disease severity was low due recorddrought during the winter. Statistically, there was no significant improvement with any fungicide combinations compared with the non-treated controls in the following spring Turfgrass Pathology Report 14

15 Tmt # Table 6. Fungicide treatments used for control of large patch on the bermudagrass fairway in the fall, 2010 Treatment (Oct 4, 2010) Rate per 1000 ft 2 (fl oz or oz/m) Treatment (Nov 15, 2010) Rate per 1000 ft 2 (fl oz or oz/m) 29-Mar-2011 Disease severity (%) 1 Quali-Pro Ipro 4 Quali-Pro Ipro A-D 2 Quali-Pro TM 2 Quali-Pro TM A 3 QP Chlorothalonil DF 3.2 QP Chlorothalonil DF BAC 4 NEW QP CHLOR DF 3.2 NEW QP CHLOR DF A-G 5 26 GT 4 26 GT A-G plus plus A-G 7 Daconil Ultrex 3.2 Daconil Ultrex C-G 8 TRITON FLO 0.75 TRITON FLO D-G 9 ProStar 70WP 2.2 TRITON FLO C-G 10 TRITON FLO 0.5 TRITON FLO GF 11 TRITON FLO 0.75 TRITON FLO EGF 12 ProStar 70WP EGF 13 ProStar 70WP 2.2 TRITON FLO G 14 DISARM 480 SC 0.18 DISARM 480 SC A-G 15 DISARM 480 SC 0.36 DISARM 480 SC D-G 16 Tartan 2 Tartan 2 10 A-F Headway G 4 #/M BA 18 Renown 4.5 Renown EGF 19 Heritage wg 2 Heritage wg A-G 20 Banner Maxx 4 Banner Maxx A-G 21 Eagle 2 Eagle B-G 22 Insignia 0.9 Insignia GF 23 Trinity 2 Trinity 2 4 GF 24 Fore 8 Fore GF 25 PCNB 7.5 #/M PCNB 7.5 #/M 7.5 A-G 26 Ammonium sulfate 16 Ammonium sulfate B-G 27 Ammonium sulfate 32 Ammonium sulfate GF 28 Maxide disease killer 4 #/M Maxide disease killer 4 #/M 5 D-G 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 15

16 29 Non-treated control - Non-treated control B-G 30 Non-treated control - Non-treated control B-G QP 642 Fungicide A-G Propiconazole BAC QP Chlorothalonil DF + Propiconazole A QP 642 Fungicide + Foursome BA NEW QP CHLOR DF + Propiconazole Foursome BAC QP Chlorothalonil DF + Propiconazole Foursome A-E Different letters within the same column indicate significant difference 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 16

17 7. Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of large patch on seashore paspalum in College Station in 2010 Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Charles Fontanier and Richard White, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of large patch disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani and spring green-up on seashore paspalum. Materials and Methods Fungicide efficacy was evaluated on paspalum for control of large patch disease between the late fall, 2010 and spring, The field trial was conducted on the fairway located at the Texas A&M University Turfgrass Research Field in College Station, TX. Individual plots measured 3 6 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO 2 -pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two TeeJet 8002 nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gal dilute fungicide spray per 1000 ft 2. The application was performed twice on 6 Oct and 12 Nov Percent diseased area was measured in the following spring on 21 Mar Data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05). Results and Discussion Spring green-up began and disease symptoms appeared in March on most plots. However the disease severity was low due to record-drought during the winter. Statistically, there was treatment effect in early December, but no significant improvement with any fungicide combinations compared with the non-treated controls in the following spring Turfgrass Pathology Report 17

18 Tmt # Treatment (Oct 6, 2010) Table 7. Fungicide treatments used for control of large patch on the paspalum fairway in the fall, 2010 Rate per 1000 ft 2 (fl oz or oz/m) Treatment (Nov 12, 2010) Rate per 1000 ft 2 (fl oz or oz/m) 2-Dec-2010 Disease severity (%) 21-Mar-2011 Disease severity (%) 1 Tartan 2 Tartan ED 7.5 DC 2 Tartan 2 TRITON FLO EDC 8.75 BDC 3 Tartan 2 TRITON FLO ED 10 BAC 4 DISARM 480 SC 0.18 DISARM 480 SC BDC 10 BAC 5 DISARM 480 SC 0.36 DISARM 480 SC BAC 10 BAC 6 Heritage wg 2 Heritage wg EDC 8.75 BDC 7 Ammonium sulfate 32 Ammonium sulfate BA 6.25 D 8 Maxide disease killer 4 #/M Maxide disease killer 4 #/M BDC 12.5 A 9 Non-treated control - Non-treated control A BA 10 Non-treated control - Non-treated control A 8.75 BDC QP 642 Fungicide ED BA NEW QP CHLOR DF + Propiconazole ED 12.5 A QP Chlorothalonil DF + Propiconazole ED BA QP 642 Fungicide + Foursome ED 8.75 BDC NEW QP CHLOR DF + Propiconazole Foursome ED 10 BAC QP Chlorothalonil DF + Propiconazole Foursome E 10 BAC Different letters within the same column indicate significant difference 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 18

19 8. Efficacy of spring nematicide application for control of sting nematode on bermudagrass in Houston in 2011 Young-Ki Jo, and J.L Starr, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate nematicides for management of nematode problems on the bermudagrass putting green. Materials and Methods Nematicide efficacy was evaluated on bermudagrass cultivar Tifway 419 for control of nematode disease in the spring, The field trial was conducted on the putting green (5-inch sand cap) located at Royal Oaks Country Club in Houston, TX. This putting green had been determined to be highly infested with sting nematode before the field experiment began. Individual plots measured 3 8 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO 2 -pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two TeeJet 8002 nozzles. All nematicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gal dilute nematicide spray per 1000 ft 2, with the exception of three treatments (Treatment # 1-3) that were applied in the dry granular form. The application of Treatments 1-7 was performed on 28 Mar, and 14 days later the application of Treatments 4-10 were performed on 11 Apr After treatment, addition water (~1 inch) was sprayed until the turf was saturated. Turf quality (1-9 scale: 6 = acceptable and 9 = best) and number of plant parasitic nematodes were measured. Composite soil and root samples were collected from each test plot using a standard 2.5 cm diameter soil probe. Ten individual cores were collected from each plot and mixed to form a composite sample. Nematodes will be extracted from the samples using a modified Baermann funnel system, identified to genus, and counted using an inverted compound microscope. Data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05). Results and Discussion Turf quality and color was improved by Nortica WP5 treatments (Treatment # 8-10). However the dry granular application Nortica WP5 treatments (Treatment # 1-3) caused phytotoxicity that burned turf within 7 days after treatment. Statistically, there was no treatment that significantly decreased the number of sting nematodes Turfgrass Pathology Report 19

20 Table 8. Efficacy of nematicide treatments tested on the bermudagrass putting green # Treatment App rate note Turf quality No. nematode 11-Apr 2-May 11-Apr 2-May 1 Nortica WP5 50 #/A Granular application c Nortica WP5 70 #/A Granular application bc Nortica WP5 90 #/A Granular application c Actinovate-AG 6 oz/a Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft c Actinovate-S 6 oz/a Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft abc NanoAg Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft abc Control abc Nortica WP5 50 #/A Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft a Nortica WP5 70 #/A Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft a Nortica WP5 90 #/A Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft ab Fisher's Protected LSD (α = 0.05) NS LSD = NS NS NS = not significant; Different letters within the same column indicate significant difference 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 20

21 9. Efficacy of summer nematicide application for control of root knot nematode on bermudagrass in Sugar Land in 2011 Young-Ki Jo, and J.L Starr, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate nematicides for management of nematode problems on the bermudagrass putting green. Materials and Methods Nematicide efficacy was evaluated on bermudagrass cultivar Miniverde for control of nematode disease in the summer, The field trial was conducted on the putting green (5-inch sand cap) located at Riverbend Country Club in Sugar Land, TX. This putting green had been determined to be highly infested with root knot nematodes before the field experiment began. Individual plots measured 4 8 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO 2 -pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two TeeJet 8002 nozzles. All nematicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gal dilute nematicide spray per 1000 ft 2. The application of treatments was performed on 12 Jul. After treatment, addition water (~1 inch) was sprayed until the turf was saturated. Turf quality (1-9 scale: 6 = acceptable and 9 = best) and number of plant parasitic nematodes were measured. Composite soil and root samples will be collected from each test plot using a standard 2.5 cm diameter soil probe. Ten individual cores will be collected from each plot and mixed to form a composite sample. Nematodes will be extracted from the samples using a modified Baermann funnel system, identified to genus, and counted using an inverted compound microscope. Data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05). Results and Discussion Statistically, there was no treatment that significantly decreased the number of root knot nematodes or improved turf quality Turfgrass Pathology Report 21

22 Table 9. Efficacy of nematicide treatments tested on the bermudagrass putting green Turf quality No. nematode # Treatment App rate Note 12-Jul 19-Jul 12-Jul 27-Jul 9-Aug 1 Nortica WP5 70 #/A Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft NanoAg Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft Control Turfgrass Pathology Report 22

23 10. Efficacy of fall nematicide application for control of root knot nematode on bermudagrass in Sugar Land in 2011 Young-Ki Jo, and J.L Starr, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate nematicides for management of nematode problems on the bermudagrass putting green. Materials and Methods Nematicide efficacy was evaluated on bermudagrass cultivar Miniverde for control of nematode disease in the summer, The field trial was conducted on the putting green (5-inch sand cap) located at Riverbend Country Club in Sugar Land, TX. This putting green had been determined to be highly infested with root knot nematodes before the field experiment began. Individual plots measured 6 6 ft and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO 2 -pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two TeeJet 8002 nozzles. All nematicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gal dilute nematicide spray per 1000 ft 2. Granular products (Treatment # 3-5) were applied with hands and brush in. After treatment, addition water (~1 inch) was sprayed until the turf was saturated. The application of treatments was performed on 1 Nov and 23 Nov. Turf quality (1-9 scale: 6 = acceptable and 9 = best) and number of plant parasitic nematodes were measured. Composite soil and root samples will be collected from each test plot using a standard 2.5 cm diameter soil probe. Ten individual cores will be collected from each plot and mixed to form a composite sample. Nematodes will be extracted from the samples using a modified Baermann funnel system, identified to genus, and counted using an inverted compound microscope. At the end of the experiment, thatch and soil was collected from each plot with the soil probe. The sample was burned into ash in a muffle furnace for 3 hours. The organic matter content of the sample was analyzed by determining the ash weight. Loss on ignition (LOI) content is calculated at %LOI = (dry weight ash weight)/dry weight x 100. All data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05) Turfgrass Pathology Report 23

24 Results and Discussion Statistically, there was detected no treatment effect that significantly decreased the number of root knot nematodes, due to high variability among replicates. However, most treatments showed the improvement on turf quality on 7 Dec at the level of P = Table 10. Efficacy of nematicide treatments tested on the bermudagrass putting green in Sugar Land # Treatment App rate note Turf quality No. nematode %LOI 15-Nov 7-Dec 15-Nov 7-Dec 7-Dec 1 Nortica WP5 70 #/A Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft a Nano Ag Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft abc MCW-2 60 #/A Granular application bc MCW #/A Granular application bc MCW #/A Granular application ab Control c Fisher's Protected LSD (α = 0.05) LSD = P-value NS NS NS NS NS = not significant; Different letters within the same column indicate significant difference LOI = Loss on ignition content, % organic matter 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 24

25 11. Efficacy of fall nematicide application for control of root knot nematode on bermudagrass in College Station in 2011 Young-Ki Jo, and J.L Starr, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Charles Fontanier and Richard White, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University Objective To evaluate nematicides for management of nematode problems on the bermudagrass putting green. Materials and Methods Fungicide efficacy was evaluated on bermudagrass cultivar Tif Eagle for control of nematode disease in the fall, 2011 before winter dormancy. The field trial was conducted on the putting green (5-inch capping sand) located at Texas A&M Turf Research Field, College Station, TX. This putting green had been determined to be highly infested with root knot nematodes before the field experiment began. Individual plots measured 4 6 feet and were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The application of treatments was performed on 21 Nov. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 psi using a CO2-pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two TeeJet 8002 nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied at the equivalent of 2 gal dilute fungicide spray per 1000 ft2. Granular products (Treatment # 3-5) were applied with hands and brush in. After treatment, addition water (~1 inch) was sprayed until the turf was saturated. Composite soil and root samples will be collected from each test plot using a standard 2.5 cm diameter soil probe. Ten individual cores will be collected from each plot and mixed to form a composite sample. Nematodes will be extracted from the samples using a modified Baermann funnel system, identified to genus, and counted using an inverted compound microscope. All data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means comparisons were performed using Fisher s Protected LSD (alpha = 0.05) Turfgrass Pathology Report 25

26 Results and Discussion Most treatments (Treatment # 1-4) significantly decreased the number of root knot nematode population at the level of P = Turf quality of the field was generally below acceptable levels because of biotic and abiotic stresses during the summer season. No apparent difference on turf quality among treatments was observed. Table 11. Efficacy of nematicide treatments tested on the bermudagrass putting green in College Station # Treatment App rate note No. nematode 8-Dec 1 Nortica WP5 70 #/A Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft b 2 Nano Ag Sprayer at 2 gal/1000 ft b 3 MCW-2 60 #/A Granular application 93.3 b 4 MCW #/A Granular application b 5 MCW #/A Granular application ab 6 Control a Fisher's Protected LSD (α = 0.05) P-value 0.08 Different letters within the same column indicate significant difference 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 26

27 12. Efficacy of fall fungicide application for control of leaf spot on bermudagrass in the Woodlands in 2011 Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of leaf spot problems caused by Bipolaris spp. on the bermudagrass putting green. Materials and Methods The field trials were conducted at the Woodland Country Club, Palmer Course, the Woodlands, TX. Field plots were established on bermudagrass fairway, maintained at 1/4-inch mowing height. Individual plots measured 3 by 4 feet. The field plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. A total of 15 fungicide treatments along with 3 non-treated controls were applied. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 p.s.i using a CO 2 pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two Teejet 8002 VS nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied in the equivalent of 2 gallons of dilute fungicide spray per 1,000 ft 2. Fungicide applications were performed on September 20. Percent diseased area and turfgrass quality of each plot were recorded weekly during the field evaluation. Turf quality (1-9 scale: 6 = acceptable and 9 = best) were measured. Data obtained were subjected to an analysis of variance to determine significant differences between treatments using the SAS software program. Results and Discussion Statistically, there was no treatment effect that significantly improved turf quality. The turf quality was naturally improved as the weather became cool (below 100 F of the high temperature) and had more rain falls since September Turfgrass Pathology Report 27

28 Table 12. Efficacy of fungicide treatments tested on the bermudagrass fairway in the Woodlands. Turfgrass quality is presented. # Treatment App rate (fl oz or oz/m) 17-Oct 25-Oct 1-Nov 23-Nov 1 QP QP IPRO 2 SE Propiconazole QP IPRO 2 SE Propiconazole QP Tebuconazole QP IPRO 2 SE QP Tebuconazole Daconil ULTREX Interface Interface Chipco Iprodione PRO 2SE Banner Maxx Eagle 20 EW plus Heritage TL Control Control Control P-value NS NS NS NS 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 28

29 13. Efficacy of spring fungicide application for control of black spot on zoysiagrass in the Woodlands, TX in 2011 Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of black spot disease caused by Cochliobolus species on zoysiagrass. Materials and Methods The field trials were conducted at the Club of Carlton Woods, Tom Fazio Championship Course, Woodlands, TX. Field plots were established on zoysiagrass (cultivar Zeon) fairway (a chipping practice hole), maintained at 1/4-inch mowing height. Individual plots measured 3 by 3 feet. The field plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. A total of 24 treatments including 15 different fungicide treatments, 4 fertilizer treatments and 2 plant growth regulators along with 3 non-treated controls were applied. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 p.s.i using a CO 2 pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two Teejet 8002 VS nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied in the equivalent of 2 gallons of dilute fungicide spray per 1,000 ft 2. Fungicide applications were performed on May 31. Percent diseased area and turfgrass quality of each plot were recorded weekly during the field evaluation. Turf quality (1-9 scale: 6 = acceptable and 9 = best) and number of black spot (2-inch diameter) were measured. Data obtained were subjected to an analysis of variance to determine significant differences between treatments using the SAS software program. The mean percent disease for each treatment is presented in the tables below. Results and Discussion Symptoms of black spot disease included distinctive black round spot on zoysiagrass fairways. As the disease progressed, individual spots were merged to bigger and irregular patches. Most fungicide treatments showed reduced disease severity (see Table 13) and turfgrass quality improvement (see Table 14) within 2 weeks after application. A single application of any good fungicide in May could hold down the disease throughout the summer. Fertilizer and plant growth regulator treatments were not effective in reducing the disease Turfgrass Pathology Report 29

30 Table 13. Black spot severity on the zoysiagrass fairway # Treatment App rate (fl oz or oz/m) 5/31/2011 (beginning) 6-Jun 12-Jul 27-Jul 23-Aug 20-Sep QP hi 0.8 e 0.0 f 0.0 e 0.0 e 1 QP IPRO 2 SE hi 1.3 e 2.5 f 0.5 de 0.0 e 2 Propiconazole ghi 1.5 e 2.3 f 1.0 cde 0.0 e 3 QP IPRO 2 SE i 0.0 e 0.5 f 0.3 de 0.0 e Propiconazole QP Tebuconazole ghi 4.0 de 3.5 e 1.8 cde 1.3 de 5 QP IPRO 2 SE hi 0.0 e 0.0 f 0.0 e 0.0 e QP Tebuconazole Daconil ULTREX i 2.8 e 3.0 f 0.3 de 1.0 de 8 Interface hi 0.5 e 0.5 f 0.0 e 0.0 e 9 Interface hi 0.5 e 0.5 f 0.3 de 1.3 de 10 Chipco ghi 0.8 e 0.3 f 0.0 e 0.0 e 11 Iprodione PRO 2SE hi 2.3 e 2.8 f 0.0 e 0.8 e 12 Banner Maxx ghi 2.3 e 1.3 f 0.0 e 0.5 e 13 Eagle 20 EW fghi 7.8 bcde 5.8 def 0.3 de 0.0 e plus efgh 7.0 ced 6.3 def 0.5 de 5.3 bcd 15 Heritage TL fghi 0.3 e 1.5 f 1.3 cde 2.5 cde 16 Ammonium sulfate cd 17.3 a 9.5 cde 0.8 cde 1.5 de 17 Ammonium sulfate efg 14.3 abc 14.3 abc 1.5 cde 4.3 bcde 18 Primo Maxx bc 15.8 ab 18.0 ab 2.8 bcd 11.0 a 19 Primo Maxx de 11.0 abcd 15.0 abc 5.8 a 8.0 ab 20 TurfRx fairway (PKBCuFeMnZn) cde 14.8 abc 12.0 bcd 0.8 cde 0.5 e 21 TurfRx penecal (surfactant+ca) ef 11.8 abcd 10.8 cd 2.0 bcde 6.5 bc 22 Non-treated control a 17.8 a 17.5 ab 0.5 de 7.0 ab 23 Non-treated control bcd 16.5 a 17.8 ab 3.3 abc 6.3 bc 24 Non-treated control ab 17.5 a 18.8 a 4.5 ab 7.3 ab Fisher's Protected LSD (α = 0.05) NS LSD = 4.82 LSD = 8.22 LSD = 6.34 LSD = 2.51 LSD = 4.44 NS = not significant; Different letters within the same column indicate significant difference 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 30

31 Table 14. Turf quality on the zoysiagrass fairway # Treatment App rate (fl oz or oz/m) 6-Jun 12-Jul 27-Jul 20-Sep QP abcd 5.5 abc 5.75 a 6 a 1 QP IPRO 2 SE a 6 a 6 a 6 a 2 Propiconazole abc 4.5 b-f 5.75 a 6 a 3 QP IPRO 2 SE ab 6 a 5.75 a 6 a Propiconazole QP Tebuconazole abcd 4.5 b-f 5 abcd 5.75 ab 5 QP IPRO 2 SE 4 7 abc 5.75 ab 5.75 a 5.75 ab QP Tebuconazole Daconil ULTREX abcd 4.25 cdef 5.25 abc 5.75 ab 8 Interface abc 5.25 abcd 5.75 abc 5.75 ab 9 Interface 4 7 abc 4.5 b-f 5.5 ab 5.25 bc 10 Chipco abcd 5 a-e 6 a 6 a 11 Iprodione PRO 2SE abcd 4.25 cdef 5.5 ab 5.75 ab 12 Banner Maxx bcde 5 a-e 5.5 ab 5.5 abc 13 Eagle 20 EW dce 4.5 b-f 5.25 abc 5.75 ab plus def 4.75 a-f 4.25 ced 5.75 ab 15 Heritage TL bcde 5 a-e 5.75 a 5.75 ab 16 Ammonium sulfate fgh 4.25 cdef 4.25 cde 5.5 abc 17 Ammonium sulfate def 4.5 b-f 4 de 5.25 bc 18 Primo Maxx fgh 4 def 3.5 e 5 c 19 Primo Maxx efg 4 def 3.75 e 5 c 20 TurfRx fairway (PKBCuFeMnZn) def 5 a-e 4.5 bcde 5.75 ab 21 TurfRx penecal (surfactant+ca) efg 4.75 a-f 4.5 bcde 5.75 ab 22 Non-treated control 4.5 gh 3.75 ef 3.5 e 5.25 bc 23 Non-treated control 4.25 h 5 a-e 3.5 e 5.25 bc 24 Non-treated control 4.5 gh 3.5 f 3.75 e 5 c Fisher's Protected LSD (α = 0.05) LSD = 1.10 LSD = 1.44 LSD = 1.10 LSD = 0.58 Different letters within the same column indicate significant difference 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 31

32 14. Efficacy of summer fungicide application for control of black spot on zoysiagrass in the Woodlands, TX in 2011 Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of black spot disease caused by Cochliobolus species on zoysiagrass. Materials and Methods The field trials were conducted at the Club of Carlton Woods, Tom Fazio Championship Course, Woodlands, TX. Field plots were established on zoysiagrass (cultivar Zeon) fairway #8 hole, maintained at 1/4-inch mowing height. Individual plots measured 3 by 3 feet. The field plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. No fungicide was used before this field trial. In late August, black spot started ramping up in the #8 fairway. A total of 24 treatments including 15 different fungicide treatments, 3 fertilizer treatments and 2 plant growth regulators along with 4 nontreated controls were applied. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 p.s.i using a CO 2 pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two Teejet 8002 VS nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied in the equivalent of 2 gallons of dilute fungicide spray per 1,000 ft 2. Fungicide applications were performed on August 30. Percent diseased area and turfgrass quality of each plot were recorded weekly during the field evaluation. Turf quality (1-9 scale: 6 = acceptable and 9 = best) and number of black spot (2-inch diameter) were measured. Data obtained were subjected to an analysis of variance to determine significant differences between treatments using the SAS software program. The mean percent disease for each treatment is presented in the tables below. Results and Discussion Most fungicide treatments showed reduced disease severity and turfgrass quality improvement within 2 weeks after application. Fertilizer and plant growth regulator treatments did not show less effect on reducing the disease. Disease severity ratings significantly less than the control are in bold Turfgrass Pathology Report 32

33 Table 15. Efficacy of fungicide treatments tested on the zoysiagrass fairway App rate 30-Aug No of black spot Turf quality # Treatment (fl oz or oz/m) (beginning) 6-Sep 20-Sep 20-Sep QP de 0.0 d 6.8 a 1 QP IPRO 2 SE e 0.0 d 6.3 abc 2 Propiconazole de 0.0 d 6.5 ab 3 QP IPRO 2 SE cde 0.0 d 6.5 ab Propiconazole QP Tebuconazole bcde 0.5 cd 6.3 abc 5 QP IPRO 2 SE cde 0.0 d 6.3 abc QP Tebuconazole Daconil ULTREX a-e 0.0 d 5.5 def 8 Interface abcd 1.8 cd 6.0 bcd 9 Interface de 0.0 d 6.0 bcd 10 Chipco ab 5.5 bcd 5.8 cde 11 Iprodione PRO 2SE de 0.0 d 6.0 bcd 12 Banner Maxx bcde 0.5 cd 6.0 bcd 13 Eagle 20 EW abc 0.5 cd 6.0 bcd plus de 1.0 cd 5.8 cde 15 Heritage TL de 0.0 d 6.5 ab 16 Ammonium sulfate bcde 4.0 bcd 6.3 abc 17 Non-treated control a-e 8.8 b 5.3 efg 18 Primo Maxx de 5.8 bcd 5.3 efg 19 Primo Maxx a-e 8.3 b 4.5 h 20 TurfRx fairway (PKBCuFeMnZn) a-e 6.5 bc 5.5 def 21 TurfRx penecal (surfactant+ca) bcde 4.0 bcd 5.8 cde 22 Non-treated control de 5.0 bcd 5.5 def 23 Non-treated control a 17.0 a 4.8 gh 24 Non-treated control a-e 8.8 b 5.0 fgh Fisher's Protected LSD (α = 0.05) NS LSD = 4.45 LSD = 6.03 LSD = 0.72 NS = not significant; Different letters within the same column indicate significant difference 2011 Turfgrass Pathology Report 33

34 15. Efficacy of spring fungicide application for control of fairy ring on the bermudagrass putting green in Sugar Land, TX in 2011 Young-Ki Jo, Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University Anthony Camerino, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Harris County Office Objective To evaluate fungicides for management of fairy ring disease on bermudagrass putting green. Materials and Methods The field trials were conducted at Riverbend Country Club, Sugar Land, TX. Field plots were established on the bermudagrass cultivar Miniverde practice putting green, maintained at inch mowing height. Individual plots measured 3 by 6 feet. The field plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. In past year, this practice putting green was heavily infested with fairy ring. The putting greens till showed residual symptoms, but there was significant recovered from the previous year. A total of 5 different fungicide treatments along with 2 non-treated controls were applied. Individual treatments were applied at a pressure of 40 p.s.i using a CO 2 pressurized boom sprayer equipped with two Teejet 8002 VS nozzles. All fungicides were agitated by hand and applied in the equivalent of 2 gallons of dilute fungicide spray per 1,000 ft 2. Turfgrass quality (1-9 scale: 6 = acceptable and 9 = best) of each plot were recorded biweekly during the field evaluation. Data obtained were subjected to an analysis of variance to determine significant differences between treatments using the SAS software program. The mean turf quality for each treatment is presented in the tables below. Results and Discussion No fungicide treatments showed significant reduction of disease severity or improvement of turfgrass quality. Granular application of Nortica by an accident caused severe phytotoxicity on turf Turfgrass Pathology Report 34